There Will Be Blood

[Knoxville-Horn]

***Spoiler***














Good movie but there were a couple of things that I didn't get. At the risk of sounding like Verne in Stand By Me, here are my questions:

Did the boy set the fire because he found out something in Daniel's brother's diary or was he just acting out because he was messed up from being deaf?
I thought that maybe he found something out and was setting the fire to kill the poser to help protect his father.

Also, after Daniel killed the poser, he looked at his brother's diary and a picture fell out? Who was in the picture AND did he realize at that point that he had made a mistake by sending his son away? In other words, in relation to the first question, did he realize that his son had set the fire to protect him or am I missing something.

Maybe I'm also reading this one wrong, was Daniel a complete *** to everyone (his son, Eli, etc..) because he hated to see other people happy/successful?

Finally, who was Paul? At the beginning, Eli visited to point out where Daniel could find oil on his father's property. In multiple scenes, his brother "Paul" was mentioned. Was this just Eli's alias for when he wanted to do something sinful or am I completely missing a character?

Sorry for the length. I just really got into it but didn't understand a few things.

 

[AstroVol]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Horns2005]

My take on Daniel's anger is that he didn't respect people who didn't take honest sacrifice, i.e. how Daniel broke his leg in the first scene, which is why the oil contractors and Eli pissed him off more than anyone. The two falsest schemes - the fake brother, and Eli professing himself a false prophet - are the ones that Daniel decides to kill.

Similarly I think he sends away HW because he can't take the shame -- H.W. is his lie.

 

[Mesohorny]

there was a real Paul because Daniel chided Eli abt his brother Paul's success in the oil business before Danilel did his bowling pin thing on Eli's noggin.

 

[Fatcat Alum]

Re: Paul, from what I understand Paul and Eli were supposed to be twin brothers in the movie but were obviously played by the same actor. Daniel looks confused in the scene where he is talking with Eli and his father at first, but later puts it together. I guess Paul took Daniel's money and set off on his own.

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Knoxville-Horn]

Cool. I thought the dumbest question that I had asked was about Eli/Paul. That puts a new spin on things. If Paul and Eli were the same, I was wondering what in the hell was going on when Eli begins verbally abusing his father at the dinner table. Now, it makes sense. So, in a way, Eli was taking his anger out on his father because:
A) He had just gotten his *** beat and he looked like a coward.
B) Eli's anger was projected onto his own father in the fit of rage because Eli got taken (to an extent) by his brother AND by Daniel.

So, was there any significance to the baby picture in the diary? I have a couple of thoughts:
1) It's just a picture of Daniel or his real brother. Seeing it caused him grief at losing the family member he thought he had gained.
2) It somehow gave evidence to the child that the brother was an imposter - hence him setting the fire. When Daniel sees the picture at the end, he realizes this, causing him grief, and helping him bring his child back.
OR, it is a picture of Daniel's child giving Daniel the realization that the child knew of the imposter, set the fire and left the picture in the diary.

I'm sure #1 is more plausible, I probably over-plotted this. Nevertheless, Plainview turned out to be a real dick in the end.

 

[Ampoliros]

I wasn't a fan of the movie. I thought the script was pretty terrible. The characters all seemed to act too randomly, out of nowhere, and the huge time jump at the end just seemed so weird and forced. Great visuals and cinematography, the characters had a lot of potential. I just felt like the script needed a better screenwriter than Anderson.

 

[Dr.Strangehorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[HammerOfTheHorns]

I share the opinion that the picture in the diary was Plainview's actual brother -- the one he would never know.

If you look closely next time, you'll note the son was holding the diary upside down while perusing it, strongly suggesting he had never been taught to read! I believe the son intuitively realized that Plainview intended to replace him as sole friend and companion with the newly arrived "brother" and thus wanted to eliminate him and resecure his own position with his father.

I'd also like to raise the possibility that the character's actions seem more natural and acceptable if you view them as those of men of their era. Values have changed alot since the early 20th century, and the writers are to be commended imo for attempting to present the characters as men of their own time, rather than through the typical 21st century filter (cough, Braveheart, Gladiator, etc...)